RealGM

BOS trades: Anfernee Simons, 2026 BOS 1st (1-10, 1-8, unprotected?)
in: fake 2nd
Dump Simons.

SAC trades: DeMar DeRozan, Devin Carter
in: Anfernee Simons, Kevin Love
Dump the last year of DeRozan.

UTA trades: Kevin Love
in: DeMar DeRozan (TPE, released), Devin Carter, 2026 BOS 1st (1-10, 1-8, unprotected?)
Get a first and a recent lottery pick for taking on DeRozan's contract (which has a partial guarantee of $10 million next year).

Not a fan at all of this one for SAC.

We make the log jam at guard worse by bringing in Simons, and by all accounts, we're aligning ourselves to have some cap setup for the 2027 offseason so getting off of DeRozan's last year isn't all that important at the moment (LaVine & Schroder expire that year too).

I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

djFan71 wrote:I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

I am starting to think their best option is to stretch him, tbh. They can get under the tax and it is clear these combo guards have zero trade value + Simons is the highest paid out of a pretty similar bunch while - I think - being one of the worst players in the group that can average 20 (Sexton, Monk, Simons, White, etc.). He is fine, but I think the future flexibility is 100 percent worth getting him off the roster.

Obviously you have to take public comments with a grain of salt, but Brad Stevens came out and said that they've been told by ownership not to prioritize using their picks to save money. Again, grain of salt... but that 2026 pick far and away projects to be the highest pick they make for the rest of Tatum's time there. They don't have any overly strong budding young players. By all accounts, they view Tatum/Brown/White as the core.

I struggle to bridge the gap between "we're not going to use picks to save money" and "ok, here's far and away the singular most valuable pick we have to take on a contract for us". Even "discounting" back Stevens' comments because people always frame things better to fans publicly, I just think that's too much. BOS can duck the tax, if that's their goal, by salary dumping Hauser/Niang/Tillman at the deadline and replacing them with prorated minimum deals. That won't cost a first like this with Simons.

So conceptually I think any deals that have BOS paying the pick price to FULLY clear Simons are D.O.A. You can debate value but I just don't see them making sense in BOS's situation.

hugepatsfan wrote:Obviously you have to take public comments with a grain of salt, but Brad Stevens came out and said that they've been told by ownership not to prioritize using their picks to save money. Again, grain of salt... but that 2026 pick far and away projects to be the highest pick they make for the rest of Tatum's time there. They don't have any overly strong budding young players. By all accounts, they view Tatum/Brown/White as the core.

I struggle to bridge the gap between "we're not going to use picks to save money" and "ok, here's far and away the singular most valuable pick we have to take on a contract for us". Even "discounting" back Stevens' comments because people always frame things better to fans publicly, I just think that's too much. BOS can duck the tax, if that's their goal, by salary dumping Hauser/Niang/Tillman at the deadline and replacing them with prorated minimum deals. That won't cost a first like this with Simons.

So conceptually I think any deals that have BOS paying the pick price to FULLY clear Simons are D.O.A. You can debate value but I just don't see them making sense in BOS's situation.

I actually disagree that dumping Huaser won't cost a first. Maybe I am wrong, but all of this - again - just feels like good reasons to stretch Simons and be done with it. If they can find buyers for those other guys they absolutely should do it.

babyjax13 wrote:

djFan71 wrote:I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

I am starting to think their best option is to stretch him, tbh. They can get under the tax and it is clear these combo guards have zero trade value + Simons is the highest paid out of a pretty similar bunch while - I think - being one of the worst players in the group that can average 20 (Sexton, Monk, Simons, White, etc.). He is fine, but I think the future flexibility is 100 percent worth getting him off the roster.

Stretching him would put them in a spot to duck the tax this year, but means they'd have to go back over next year. They're on the line now of ducking next year but probably have to go over to really build it around Tatum and give the team a real chance. Simons' dead money means they'd have to do that or essentially waste a year of his prime. OR they could dump Hauser next year to offset Simons' dead money on the stretch. BUT if you're dumping Hauser anyway why not just do that now and then follow up with dumping Niang and Tillman for modest costs to duck the tax this year?

hugepatsfan wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

djFan71 wrote:I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

I am starting to think their best option is to stretch him, tbh. They can get under the tax and it is clear these combo guards have zero trade value + Simons is the highest paid out of a pretty similar bunch while - I think - being one of the worst players in the group that can average 20 (Sexton, Monk, Simons, White, etc.). He is fine, but I think the future flexibility is 100 percent worth getting him off the roster.

Stretching him would put them in a spot to duck the tax this year, but means they'd have to go back over next year. They're on the line now of ducking next year but probably have to go over to really build it around Tatum and give the team a real chance. Simons' dead money means they'd have to do that or essentially waste a year of his prime. OR they could dump Hauser next year to offset Simons' dead money on the stretch. BUT if you're dumping Hauser anyway why not just do that now and then follow up with dumping Niang and Tillman for modest costs to duck the tax this year?

Maybe that is the route, then. I think it might take more value to dump Hauser and Niang. Simons is potentially a viable starter for a team that needs a scoring combo guard because their playmaking is covered. Niang is a 8th/9th man and Hauser is a bit better but on a long deal that I don't think represents great value. You probably aren't mad if you have it, but I think teams would prefer to not have him if it meant they could choose a player in free agency to fill that salary spot. I know I would be much more open to Utah using their TPE in the manner above than taking Hauser's long-term money.

The last year of DeRozan isn’t guaranteed

babyjax13 wrote:

djFan71 wrote:I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

I am starting to think their best option is to stretch him, tbh. They can get under the tax and it is clear these combo guards have zero trade value + Simons is the highest paid out of a pretty similar bunch while - I think - being one of the worst players in the group that can average 20 (Sexton, Monk, Simons, White, etc.). He is fine, but I think the future flexibility is 100 percent worth getting him off the roster.

What do you think from UTA side on this one?

MIL: Simons and Niang for Kuzma, 2nds
BOS: Vanderbilt, SloMo, 2nd for Simons, Niang
LAL: Kuzma, 2nd for Vanderbilt, Vincent and Knecht
UTA: Vincent, Knecht for SloMo

You add $2M from SloMo to Vincent and get Knecht for taking that on. Or get a 2nd and not Knecht for the $2M.
The MIL 2nds are the from WAS via the jayjaysee idea in that thread. Could also be a secondary swap rights to BOS on the MIL 2028 pick and a BOS 2nd to LAL.

EDIT: UTA probably isn't needed. BOS can just stretch Vincent and duck the tax if they can't find a better solution.

Not trading carter to dump 10 million from derozan next year.

djFan71 wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

djFan71 wrote:I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

I am starting to think their best option is to stretch him, tbh. They can get under the tax and it is clear these combo guards have zero trade value + Simons is the highest paid out of a pretty similar bunch while - I think - being one of the worst players in the group that can average 20 (Sexton, Monk, Simons, White, etc.). He is fine, but I think the future flexibility is 100 percent worth getting him off the roster.

What do you think from UTA side on this one?

MIL: Simons and Niang for Kuzma, 2nds
BOS: Vanderbilt, SloMo, 2nd for Simons, Niang
LAL: Kuzma, 2nd for Vanderbilt, Vincent and Knecht
UTA: Vincent, Knecht for SloMo

You add $2M from SloMo to Vincent and get Knecht for taking that on. Or get a 2nd and not Knecht for the $2M.
The MIL 2nds are the from WAS via the jayjaysee idea in that thread. Could also be a secondary swap rights to BOS on the MIL 2028 pick and a BOS 2nd to LAL.

EDIT: UTA probably isn't needed. BOS can just stretch Vincent and duck the tax if they can't find a better solution.

I wpupd be fine for Utah as is. I don't love Knecht, but it is a free swing. The Lakers are owed a first, though. I don't rhink Milwaukee is the right team to include in the deal. Could Miami sub in and send Rozier?

How about just trade directly with UTAH, Simons + Hauser + future lottery protected #1 for Nurkic + Anderson + Love?

BOS continue to dump long term contract, and lower the current year salary to below 2nd apron. Getting back PF/C who are all expiring contracts.

UTAH continue to gather young talent and future pick, or showcase them, for later re-sold for further asset coming in.

BoogieTime wrote:The last year of DeRozan isn’t guaranteed

It has a partial guarantee.

Michaellam1987 wrote:How about just trade directly with UTAH, Simons + Hauser + future lottery protected #1 for Nurkic + Anderson + Love?

BOS continue to dump long term contract, and lower the current year salary to below 2nd apron. Getting back PF/C who are all expiring contracts.

UTAH continue to gather young talent and future pick, or showcase them, for later re-sold for further asset coming in.

I wouldn't do that for a lottery protected pick, tbh. I don't think Hauser has value on that contract and I don't want to continue stunting the development of our players by trotting out another me-first combo guard.

babyjax13 wrote:

hugepatsfan wrote:Obviously you have to take public comments with a grain of salt, but Brad Stevens came out and said that they've been told by ownership not to prioritize using their picks to save money. Again, grain of salt... but that 2026 pick far and away projects to be the highest pick they make for the rest of Tatum's time there. They don't have any overly strong budding young players. By all accounts, they view Tatum/Brown/White as the core.

I struggle to bridge the gap between "we're not going to use picks to save money" and "ok, here's far and away the singular most valuable pick we have to take on a contract for us". Even "discounting" back Stevens' comments because people always frame things better to fans publicly, I just think that's too much. BOS can duck the tax, if that's their goal, by salary dumping Hauser/Niang/Tillman at the deadline and replacing them with prorated minimum deals. That won't cost a first like this with Simons.

So conceptually I think any deals that have BOS paying the pick price to FULLY clear Simons are D.O.A. You can debate value but I just don't see them making sense in BOS's situation.

I actually disagree that dumping Huaser won't cost a first. Maybe I am wrong, but all of this - again - just feels like good reasons to stretch Simons and be done with it. If they can find buyers for those other guys they absolutely should do it.

I'm wrong all the time but I'm still shocked at the idea that Hauser potentially might be considered a negative. Duncan Robinson a comparable (and in my opinion worse) player just got 3/48 from the Pistons and Hauser is signed up for 4/45. I know the Pistons might not be the best organization to judge a sensible market rate from, but if that's even remotely in the ballpark for that caliber/style of player then Hauser is at least market value.

So maybe no one is giving up anything of significant value for him other than cap space, but I'd still be shocked to see it be charged at the cost of a 1st. The new CBA has me really thrown off in terms of values though, so I may just be way off base, but I still can't get my head around that.

LightTheBeam wrote:Not trading carter to dump 10 million from derozan next year.

Also not exponentially increasing the tweeter guard crowd we are trying to get rid of. No logic in this.

Complete pass.

Don't like this for either Sacramento or Boston.

Sacramento shouldn't be this desperate to move DeRozan and Boston has moved enough salary that they shouldn't be using 1st round picks to move more (if they can trade Simons for a smaller EC that's worse on-court that's fine but they can live with their current finances).

babyjax13 wrote:

djFan71 wrote:I maintain all the previous BOS objections from the previous thread. But, I do like the perseverance.

I am starting to think their best option is to stretch him, tbh.

The Boston front office is very confident in their ability to read the room, and I just don't think theyd even consider stretching Simons. Ant's deal is just too much money to stretch.

Once they are back under the 2nd apron and can send cash, they could at least trade down his number, trading Simons for lesser expirings until you have lesser pieces you can trade off with a 2nd round pick or just stretch. But there's no real chance (barring disaster) that Boston is stretching $28 million, just not gonna happen

babyjax13 wrote:

hugepatsfan wrote:Obviously you have to take public comments with a grain of salt, but Brad Stevens came out and said that they've been told by ownership not to prioritize using their picks to save money. Again, grain of salt... but that 2026 pick far and away projects to be the highest pick they make for the rest of Tatum's time there.

I actually disagree that dumping Huaser won't cost a first. Maybe I am wrong, but all of this - again - just feels like good reasons to stretch Simons and be done with it. If they can find buyers for those other guys they absolutely should do it.

It's really interesting about Hauser. Is he still on the team because Celts really value him and refuse to trade him into another team's exception for nothing or a small asset like one second round pick? Or is there no team offering to just take him for (nearly) free and teams are asking for a first to take Sam?

I think, in a world where Jrue was traded into capspace so that Boston was sitting around the tax line, then I can not imagine that Hauser would cost anything to move. But that other teams KNOW Boston has to cut money, maybe they are circling like sharks thinking Boston is desperate.

From the perspective of analytic metrics like RAPTOR, it's hard not to value Sam Hauser as a top 100 or 120 player in the league. At age 28 and making avg salary of $11 per annun over the next four, it's hard to see why Boston would have to pay value to move him.

EDIT: But also, Celtics absolutely did this to themselves by extending all of these extensions in the first place. Sam was signed for this year, if you didn't want to trade him for value, you could have let him play out his deal and negotiate this summer. The KP extension was necessary to acquire Porzingis, the JT extension was a no-brainer, but otherwise celts had to make SOME CHOICES and not book themselves into this situation. If you try to be everything to everyone, you end up being nothing to nobody